Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 01/16/2024
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is direct to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite:
Re claim 1, a system for generating alternative software configurations using advanced computational models for data analysis and automated processing, the system comprising: a processing device; a non-transitory storage device containing instructions when executed by the processing device, causes the processing device to perform the steps of:
Analyze a software configuration to determine a non-compliant software portion a non-compliant software portion, wherein the non-compliant software portion comprises a mismatch between at least a portion of the software configuration and a compliance database
Receive a complaint software portion, wherein the compliant software portion is associated with the compliance database
Reconfigure, using an artificial intelligence model, the software configuration to include the compliant software portion, wherein reconfiguring the software configuration comprises modifying the software configuration to comply with the compliance database; and
Deploy an updated software configuration, wherein the updated software configuration comprises the compliant software portion.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes.
Claim 1 is a system
Claim 8 is a medium
Claim 15 is a process
Step 2A, Prong I: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘analyze’ limitation in #1 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “analyze” in the context of the claim encompasses the person making an analysis of whether a software is compliant or not by checking if there is a mismatch between the software configuration and the compliance database. Furthermore, the “determine” limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that convers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determine” in the context of the claim encompasses the person determining if the software does match requirements of the compliance database and if not, then determines which parts do not match.
The ‘reconfigure’ limitation in #3 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For
example, “reconfigure” in the context of the claim encompasses the person modifying the non-compliant portion of the software to comply with the compliance database.
Step 2A, Prong II: does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The “receive” limitation in #2 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “receive” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The “deploy” limitation in #4 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. “Deploy” in the context of the claim is merely an “Apply it” step as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
One or more of the claims recite the following additional elements:
A non-transitory storage device (Claim 1)
A non-transitory medium (Claim 8)
A processing device (Claim 1)
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a processing device” and “non-transitory storage” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and merely displaying data do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally, with regards to #2 and #4 above, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount of significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation “receive a compliant software portion, wherein the compliant software portion is associated with the compliance database” the courts have identified mere data gathering and transmitting are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Furthermore, the limitation “deploy an updated software configuration, wherein the updated software configuration comprises the compliant software portion.” Does not require any particular application of the recited evaluation and is a best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite:
Wherein the compliance database is associated with a disability network, and
Wherein the disability network creates the compliance database to provide guidelines for configuring the software configuration.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes.
Claim 2 is a system
Claim 9 is a medium
Claim 16 is a process
Step 2A, Prong I: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The “create” limitation in #6 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “create” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making the guidelines/rules sets as described in the specification and creating a mental list of acceptable/compliant standards based on the guidelines.
The limitation of #5 merely further describes the claimed compliance database of Claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively
Claims 3, 10, and 17 recite:
Wherein analyzing the software configuration to determine the non-compliant software portion further comprises:
Comparing, using the artificial intelligence model, the software configuration with the compliance database; and
Identifying, within the software configuration, the non-compliant software portion, wherein the non-compliant software portion comprises a determination that the non-compliant software po4rtion does not match at least a portion of the compliance database.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes.
Claim 3 is a system
Claim 10 is a medium
Claim 17 is a process
Step 2A, Prong I: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The “comparing” limitation in #7 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “comparing” in the context of this claim encompasses a person checking the differences between the software configuration and the compliance database.
The “identifying” limitation in #8 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses a person making an identification of non-compliant software in the software configuration.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite:
Wherein receiving the complaint software portion comprises
Using smart contracts to transmit data from the compliance database.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes.
Claim 4 is a system
Claim 11 is a medium
Claim 18 is a process
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The “transmit” limitation in # 9 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “transmit” in the context of this claim encompasses merely transmitting data generically. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regards to # 9 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC V. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., V. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. V. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Claims 5, 12, and 19 merely further describe the claimed compliance database of Claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 merely further describe the claimed artificial intelligence model of Claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively.
Claims 7 and 14 recite:
Wherein executing the instructions further causes the processing device to:
Analyze the updated software configuration to determine a match between the updated software configuration and the compliance database; and
Deploy the updated software configuration.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes.
Claim 7 is a system
Claim 14 is a medium
Step 2A, Prong I: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The “Analyze” limitation in # 10 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “analyze” in the context of this claim encompasses the person mentally comparing the updated software and the compliance database and deciding if the software matches.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The “deploy” limitation in # 11 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. “Deploy” in the context of the claim is merely an “Apply it” step as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The limitation “deploy an updated software configuration, wherein the updated software configuration comprises the compliant software portion.” Does not require any particular application of the recited evaluation and is a best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-8, 10,14-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maloney et al (US 20230161604 A1) hereinafter Maloney in view of Giles (US 11960880 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Maloney discloses
A system for generating alternative software configurations using advanced computational models for data analysis and automated processing, the system comprising: (Maloney [0008])
A processing device (Maloney [0219])
A non-transitory storage device containing instructions when executed by the processing device, causes the processing device to perform the steps of: (Maloney [0018])
analyze a software configuration to determine a non-compliant software portion, wherein the non-compliant software portion comprises a mismatch between at least a portion of the software configuration and a compliance database; (Maloney [0159] - [0160] and [0180] discloses detecting a compliance violation based on a mismatch between the software on the particular computer and the particular settings applicable to the computer. Further discloser demonstrates a difference in settings between the (non-compliant) configuration file and the particular settings. Further, [0057] discloses the package repository may be a database storing software packages. These software packages are then provided for installation or upgrade of configuration tool.
receive a compliant software portion, wherein the compliant software portion is associated with the compliance database; (Maloney [0151] - [0152] and [0057] discloses accessing the corresponding package from package from package repository to install a current compliant version of the particular software, where the packet repository may be a database. In this instance, the database would be supplying compliant software, thus being a compliance database.
deploy an updated software configuration, wherein the updated software configuration comprises the compliant software portion (Maloney [0125] and [0057] – [0058] discloses the newly reconfigured/updated file being installed on the computer).
Maloney lacks explicitly
reconfigure, using an artificial intelligence model, the software configuration to include the compliant software portion, wherein reconfiguring the software configuration comprises modifying the software configuration to comply with the compliance database;
Giles teaches
reconfigure, using an artificial intelligence model, the software configuration to include the complaint software portion, wherein reconfiguring the software configuration comprises modifying the software configuration to comply with the compliance database (Giles Column 4, Lines 59-67 and Column 9, lines 14-23, discloses software remediation (reconfiguration) upon error using a machine learning model with rules from a compliance repository) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Maloney to incorporate the teachings of Giles to “reconfigure, using an artificial intelligence model, the software configuration to include the complaint software portion, wherein reconfiguring the software configuration comprises modifying the software configuration to comply with the compliance database” in order to automatically correct non-compliant files with compliant portions, thus increasing overall efficiency while also decreasing down time due to non-compliant files that would have required manual intervention.
Regarding claim 3, Maloney discloses
The system of claim 1
Identifying, within the software configuration, the non-compliant software portion, wherein the non-compliant software portion comprises a determination that the non-compliant software portion does not match at least a portion of the compliance database. (Maloney [0159] - [0160] and [0180] discloses detecting a compliance violation based on a mismatch between the software on the particular computer and the particular settings applicable to the computer. Further discloser demonstrates a difference in settings between the (non-compliant) configuration file and the particular settings. Further, [0057] discloses the package repository may be a database storing software packages. These software packages are then provided for installation or upgrade of configuration tool).
Maloney lacks
Comparing, using the artificial intelligence model, the software configuration with the compliance database; and
Giles teaches
Comparing, using the artificial intelligence model, the software configuration with the compliance database; and (Giles Column 1, lines 55-67 and Column 2, lines 1-14 discloses first comparing the software configuration with the configuration polices stored in a configuration policy stored in the compliance repository. Giles Column 4, lines 59-67 further disclose that this compliance remediation system utilizes machine learning model)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Maloney to incorporate the teachings of Giles to “Comparing, using the artificial intelligence model, the software configuration with the compliance database” in order to have automatic detection through comparison with the compliance database which allows the system to identify what is non-compliant quickly, identify what portion exactly is incorrect, and allows this portion to be fixed quickly, thus increasing overall system efficiency.
Regarding Claim 7, Maloney in view of Giles discloses
The system of claim 1
analyze the updated software configuration to determine a match between the updated software configuration and the compliance database, and (Maloney figure 7 demonstrates on step 706 the positive compliance signal. This is where [0174] where the system determines the match between the computer and the particular configuration files. Upon the determination that there is a mismatch, the step proceeds to 710 where there is a remediation to the configuration file. Once remediation is complete, the step loops back to 706 to determine if the updated software configuration is now compliant with the compliance database)
deploy the updated software configuration (Maloney [0125] and [0057] – [0058] discloses the newly reconfigured/updated file being installed on the computer).
Regarding claim 8, it’s directed to a medium having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus claim 8 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, it’s directed to a medium having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 14, it’s directed to a medium having similar limitations cited in claim 7. Thus claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 15, it’s directed to a method having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 17, it’s directed to a method having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maloney et al (US 20230161604 A1) hereinafter Maloney in view of Giles (US 11960880 B2) in further view of Isager (US 20190340212 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Maloney in view of Giles teach
The system of claim 1,
Maloney in view of Giles lacks
Wherein the compliance database is associated with a disability network, and wherein the disability network creates the compliance database to provide guidelines for configuring the software configuration
Isager teaches
Wherein the compliance database is associated with a disability network, and wherein the disability network creates the compliance database to provide guidelines for configuring the software configuration (Isager [0026] discloses the creation of a code library (compliance database) that includes code fixes from accessibility consulting firms and other experts in the field (disability network). Isager [0018] discloses the remediation code portions from the database are used to identify and fix issues using Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG, the same disability network used in the specification on [0058]-[0060]). Isager [0004] - [0007] further discloses the remediation code being used to fix one or more specific remediation code portions for the remediating issues on the website.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maloney in view of Giles to incorporate the teachings of Isager to “Wherein the compliance database is associated with a disability network, and wherein the disability network creates the compliance database to provide guidelines for configuring the software configuration” in order to make guidelines of what is compliant and non-compliant of the incoming software configuration, thus aiding the system to filter and fix non-compliant software. This baseline of acceptable code helps maintain a usable system for all the users.
Regarding claim 9, it’s directed to a medium having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 16, it’s directed to a method having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maloney et al (US 20230161604 A1) hereinafter Maloney in view of Giles (US 11960880 B2) in further view of Winer et al (US 20250200026 A1) herein after Winer.
Regarding Claim 4, Maloney in view of Giles disclose
The system of claim 1,
Wherein receiving the compliant software portion
Maloney in view of Giles lacks
Using smart contracts to transmit data from the compliance database
Winer teaches
Using smart contracts to transmit data from the compliance database (Winer [0122] discloses using a smart contract to transfer data from databases).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maloney in view of Giles to incorporate the teachings of Winer to “Using smart contracts to transmit data from the compliance database” in order to have direct and reliable data transfers while significantly reducing collection time for a machine learning model, as disclosed in Winer [0122]
Regarding claim 11, it’s directed to a medium having similar limitations cited in claim 4. Thus claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 18, it’s directed to a method having similar limitations cited in claim 4. Thus claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maloney et al (US 20230161604 A1) hereinafter Maloney in view of Giles (US 11960880 B2) in further view of Purathepparambil et al (US 20200021620 A1) herein after Purathepparambil.
Regarding claim 5, Maloney in view of Giles disclose
The system of claim 1
Maloney in view of Giles lack
Wherein the compliance database comprises a non-sql database
Purathepparambil teaches
Wherein the compliance database comprises a non-sql database (Purathepparambil [0068] discloses a compliance database being either sql or nosql).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maloney in view of Giles to incorporate the teachings of Purathepparambil to “wherein the compliance database comprises a non-sql database” in order to have a database that is more flexible to change rather than sql which is more structured. The non-sql database increases the systems flexibility and scalability.
Regarding claim 12, it’s directed to a medium having similar limitations cited in claim 5. Thus claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 19, it’s directed to a method having similar limitations cited in claim 5. Thus claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maloney et al (US 20230161604 A1) hereinafter Maloney in view of Giles (US 11960880 B2) in further view of Blumenthal et al (US 20190304582 A1) herein after Blumenthal.
Regarding claim 6, Maloney in view of Giles teaches
The System of claim 1
Maloney in view of Giles lack
Wherein the artificial intelligence model comprises at least a cognitive artificial model and a cognitive computing model
Blumenthal teaches
Wherein the artificial intelligence model comprises at least a cognitive artificial model and a cognitive computing model (Blumenthal [0013] – [0014] discloses levering cognitive computing techniques and the use of cognitive AI technologies)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maloney in view of Giles to incorporate the teachings of Blumenthal to “Wherein the artificial intelligence model comprises at least a cognitive artificial model and a cognitive computing model” in order to implement real-time system architecture and increase automation by allowing the AI to learn over time and continually improve, as stated in Blumenthal [0013] and [0014].
Regarding claim 13, it’s directed to a medium having similar limitations cited in claim 6. Thus claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 20, it’s directed to a method having similar limitations cited in claim 6. Thus claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J SALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6355. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat Do can be reached at (571) 272-3721. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER J SALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193